Caught
in a bind that threatens an Asian war nobody wants
Creative
diplomacy is urgently needed for a face-saving solution.
SMH,
26
December, 2012
THIS
is how wars usually start: with a steadily escalating stand-off over
something intrinsically worthless. So don't be too surprised if the
US and Japan go to war with China next year over the uninhabited
rocks that Japan calls the Senkakus and China calls the Diaoyu
islands. And don't assume the war would be contained and short.
Of
course we should all hope that common sense prevails.
It
seems almost laughably unthinkable that the world's three richest
countries - two of them nuclear-armed - would go to war over
something so trivial. But that is to confuse what starts a war with
what causes it. The Greek historian Thucydides first explained the
difference almost 2500 years ago. He wrote that the catastrophic
Peloponnesian War started from a spat between Athens and one of
Sparta's allies over a relatively insignificant dispute. But what
caused the war was something much graver: the growing wealth and
power of Athens, and the fear this caused in Sparta.
The
analogy with Asia today is uncomfortably close and not at all
reassuring. No one in 431BC really wanted a war, but when Athens
threatened one of Sparta's allies over a disputed colony, the
Spartans felt they had to intervene. They feared that to step back in
the face of Athens' growing power would fatally compromise Sparta's
position in the Greek world, and concede supremacy to Athens.
Advertisement
The
Senkakus issue is likewise a symptom of tensions whose cause lies
elsewhere, in China's growing challenge to America's long-standing
leadership in Asia, and America's response. In the past few years
China has become both markedly stronger and notably more assertive.
America has countered with the strategic pivot to Asia. Now, China is
pushing back against President Barack Obama's pivot by targeting
Japan in the Senkakus.
The
Japanese themselves genuinely fear that China will become even more
overbearing as its strength grows, and they depend on America to
protect them. But they also worry whether they can rely on Washington
as China becomes more formidable. China's ratcheting pressure over
the Senkakus strikes at both these anxieties.
The
push and shove over the islands has been escalating for months. Just
before Japan's recent election, China flew surveillance aircraft over
the islands for the first time, and since the election both sides
have reiterated their tough talk.
Where
will it end? The risk is that, without a clear circuit-breaker, the
escalation will continue until at some point shots are exchanged, and
a spiral to war begins that no one can stop. Neither side could win
such a war, and it would be devastating not just for them but for the
rest of us.
No
one wants this, but the crisis will not stop by itself. One side or
other, or both, will have to take positive steps to break the cycle
of action and reaction. This will be difficult, because any
concession by either side would so easily be seen as a backdown, with
huge domestic political costs and international implications.
It
would therefore need real political strength and skill, which is in
short supply all round - especially in Tokyo and Beijing, which both
have new and untested leaders. And each side apparently hopes that
they will not have to face this test, because they expect the other
side will back down first.
Beijing
apparently believes that if it keeps pushing, Washington will
persuade Tokyo to make concessions over the disputed islands in order
to avoid being dragged into a war with China, which would be a big
win for them. Tokyo on the other hand fervently hopes that, faced
with firm US support for Japan, China will have no choice but to back
down.
And
in Washington, too, most people seem to think China will back off.
They argue that China needs America more than America needs China,
and that Beijing will back down rather than risk a break with the US
which would devastate China's economy.
Unfortunately,
the Chinese seem to see things differently. They believe America will
not risk a break with China because America's economy would suffer so
much.
These
mutual misconceptions carry the seeds of a terrible miscalculation,
as each side underestimates how much is at stake for the other. For
Japan, bowing to Chinese pressure would feel like acknowledging
China's right to push them around, and accepting that America can't
help them. For Washington, not supporting Tokyo would not only
fatally damage the alliance with Japan, it would amount to an
acknowledgment America is no longer Asia's leading power, and that
the ''pivot'' is just posturing. And for Beijing, a backdown would
mean that instead of proving its growing power, its foray into the
Senkakus would simply have demonstrated America's continued primacy.
So for all of them, the largest issues of power and status are at
stake. These are exactly the kind of issues that great powers have
often gone to war over.
So
how do we all get out of this bind? Perhaps creative diplomacy can
find a face-saving formula that defuses the situation by allowing
each side to claim that it has given way less than the other. That
would be wonderful. But it would still leave the deeper causes of the
problem - China's growing power and the need to find a peaceful way
to accommodate it - unresolved. That remains the greatest challenge.
Hugh
White is professor of strategic studies at ANU and a visiting fellow
at the Lowy Institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.